A Cost-Effectiveness Study of Toronto Public Health s Preventing Overdose in Toronto (POINT) Program

Transcription

1 A Cost-Effectiveness Study of Toronto Public Health s Preventing Overdose in Toronto (POINT) Program Dima Saab, Lady Bolongaita, Jennifer Innis 2013 Annual CAHSPR Conference May 29, 2013: Vancouver, B.C. w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a

2 2 Overview Background: Opioid Overdose in Toronto Study Objective Design: Decision Analytic Model Model Parameters (Proportions) Model Parameters (Costs) Results Limitations & Future Directions Conclusion

3 3 Background 79 opioid overdose deaths in Toronto (Coroner s Report, 2009) Majority (85%) in the company of others (Darke, Ross & Hall, 1996) Overdose deaths occur 1-3 hours after drug use (Sporer et al., 2003) Opportunity for intervention Reluctance to contact EMS Probability of death increases with later intervention

4 4 The POINT Program Preventing Overdose in Toronto- Toronto Public Health s The Works min training, prescribed naloxone Since August 2011: 725 kits distributed, 85 reported administrations Successful naloxone distribution program programs in Europe, US, Edmonton Coffin & Sullivan (2013) Worst case scenario: ICER = $14,000/ QALY

5 POINT Program Naloxone Kit 5

6 6 Study Objective To ascertain whether the POINT program is a cost-effective strategy for reducing avoidable mortality from opioid overdose in drug users in Toronto as compared to the standard EMS and ED intervention.

7 7 Study Design: Decision Analysis Simulates individual decision-making and various chance events to identify outcomes of specific courses of action (PRA, 2011) Outcome: Cost / Avoidable Mortality Perspective: Ontario s MOHLTC and Toronto Public Health

8 8 Model Parameters (Proportions) Parameter Proportion of cases where witnesses 62.9 % administer naloxone Proportion of patients who respond to 96.0 % witness-administered naloxone Proportion of witnesses who call EMS (no 67.7 % naloxone) Proportion who call EMS after administering 41.0 % naloxone Proportion of EMS who administer naloxone 66.0 % Proportion of patients who respond to EMSadministered naloxone Proportion transported to the emergency department Proportion who survive at the emergency department (following use of naloxone kit) Base Value 94.0 % 88.8 % 99.6%

9 9 Model Parameters (Costs) Parameter Base Value (range) Naloxone kit $ Training session $ EMS treatment $ Pronouncing death by EMS $ One ampoule of naloxone $ Opioid overdose treatment in ED $ 1,000 Physician consult fee for ED services $ Pronouncing death in ED $ 3,974

10 10 Results POINT= cost-effective ICER = cost / avoidable mortality = ($ $508.32) / ( ) = - $193 / = $1,193 / avoidable mortality Sensitivity Analysis 1% Witnesses Administer Naloxone ICER= $14,323 / avoidable mortality 100% Witnesses Administer Naloxone ICER= $1,283 / life saved

11 11 Limitations & Future Directions Cost-Utility Analysis Distribution Parameter ( Contact Probability ) Underestimation of Start-Up Costs

12 12 Conclusion Preliminary results show cost-effectiveness from perspective of public payers (MOHTLC and TPH) No evidence to support moral hazard concerns (Sporer et al., 2007; Seal et al., 2005) Policy Challenges Ontario Harm Reduction Distribution Program and Health Canada Only 15% of individuals who received naloxone were those with prescription (Seal, Thawley, Gee et al., 2005)

13 13 Acknowledgments Professor Audrey Laporte, IHPME Professor Eric Nauenberg, IHPME Professor Beate Sander, IHPME Chantel Marshall, Toronto Public Health Ruth Yeoman, Toronto Public Health

14 14 Questions/Comments? Thank You.

15 15 Decision Tree Had a naloxone kit or not Injected naloxone or not Call EMS or not EMS injected naloxone or not Taken to hospital or not Final outcome: alive or dead

16 Decision Tree (repeated branch) 16

17 Decision Tree Top Branch 17

18 18 Sensitivity Analyses (Highlights) Kit used 0.01: ICER= $14,323/life saved Kit used 1.00: ICER= -$1,283/life saved Controlling for EMS calling behaviours: ICER = - $721/ life saved All kit users called EMS: ICER = -$400/life saved EMS gives naloxone 1.00: ICER = -$404/ life saved

19 19

20 20

21 Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis: EMS calling rate is held constant between treatment arms (with and without the naloxone kit) 21

22 22

23 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Baca, C.T. & Grant, K.J. (2005). Take-home naloxone to reduce heroin death. Addict, 100, Best, D., Man, L.H., Gossop, M., Noble, A. & Strang, J. (2000). Drug user s experience of witnessing overdose: What do they know and what do they need to know? Drug Alcohol Review, 19, Castelli, A. & Nizalova, O. (2011). Avoidable mortality: What it means and how it is measured. Retrieved from P63_avoidable_mortality_what_it_means_and_how_it_is_measured.p df Dettmer, K., Saunders, B., & Strang, J. (2001). Take home naloxone and the prevention of deaths from opiate overdose: two pilot schemes. BMJ, 322,

24 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a George, S. & Moreira, K. (2008). A guide for clinicians on take home naloxone prescribing. Addictive Disorders & their Treatment, 7, Green, TC., Heimer, R., Grau, L.E. (2008). Distinguishing signs of opioid overdose and indication for naloxone: an evaluation of six naloxone training and distribution programs in the United States. Addiction, 103, Guthrie, K. & Marshall, C. (2011). Peer Naloxone: a harm reduction approach to overdose prevention. The Works- Toronto Public Health. Retrieved from: Hopkins, S. (2012, June). Using Research to Prevent Overdose The POINT Program Development. Panel presentation at AIDS Committee of Toronto Research Day, Toronto. Retrieved from:

25 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Kosten, T.R. Opioid drug abuse and dependence. Chapter 393. Harrison s Online. Retrieved from: aid= &searchstr=naloxone# Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2012a). Ambulance Services Billing. Available at: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2012b). Schedule of benefits for Physician Services under the Health Insurance Act. Available at: rv/a_consul.pdf McCauley, A., Lindsay, G., Woods, M. & Louttit, D. (2010). Responsible management and use of a personal take-home naloxone supply: A pilot project. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy, 17,

26 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Kosten, T.R. Opioid drug abuse and dependence. Chapter 393. Harrison s Online. Retrieved from: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2012a). Ambulance Services Billing. Available at: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2012b). Schedule of benefits for Physician Services under the Health Insurance Act. Available at: serv/a_consul.pdf McCauley, A., Lindsay, G., Woods, M. & Louttit, D. (2010). Responsible management and use of a personal take-home naloxone supply: A pilot project. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy, 17,

27 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Ontario Case Costing Initiative (2012). Costing analysis tool. Retrieved from: Piper, T. M., Stancliff, S., Rudenstine, S., Sherman, S., Nandi, V., Clear, A., & Galea, S. (2008). Evaluation of a naloxone distribution and administration program in New York City. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, Seal, K. H., Downing, M., Kral, A. H., Singleton-Banks, S., Hammond, J. P., Lorvick, J., Ciccarone, D. & Edlin, B. R. (2003). Attitudes about prescribing take-home naloxone to injection drug users for the management of heroin overdose: a survey of street-recruited injectors in the San Francisco Bay Area. J Urban Health, 80, Sporer, K. A., Firestone, J. & Isaacs, S. M. (1996). Out-of-hospital treatment of opioid overdoses in an urban setting. Acad Emerg Med, 3,

28 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a St. Michael s Hospital. (2012). Programs and focus: Emergency Department. Retrieved from: dex.php Strang, J., Manning, V., Mayet, S., Best, D., Tetherington, E., Santana, L., Offor, E., Semmler, C. (2008). Overdose training and provision of take-home naloxone to opiate users: Prospective cohort study of immediate and lasting impact on knowledge and attitudes and subsequent management of overdoses. Addict, 10, Strang, J., Powis, B., Best, D., Vingoe, L., Griffiths, P., Taylor, C., Welch, S. & Gossop, M. (1999). Preventing opiate overdose fatalities with take-home naloxone: Pre-launch study of possible impact and acceptability. Addict, 94, Streetworks, About Streetworks. Retrieved from:

29 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Tagu, L., Anderson, B.J., Stein, M. (2006). Overdoses among friends: Drug users are willing to administer naloxone to others. J Subst Abuse Treat, 30, Tobin, K.E., Sherman, S.G., Beilenson, P., Welsh, C., Latkin, C.A. (2009). Evaluation of the Staying Alive programme: Training injection drug users to properly administer naloxone and save lives. Int J Drug Policy, 20, Toronto Public Health (2012). The Toronto drug strategy status report Toronto Drug Strategy Implementation Panel. Retrieved from: Tracy, M., Piper, T.M., Ompad, D.C., Bucciarelli, A., Coffin, P.O., Vlahov, D. & Galea, S. (2005). Circumstances of witnessed drug overdose in New York City: Implications for intervention. Drug Alcohol Depend, 79,

30 w w w. i h p m e. u t o r o n t o. c a Wagner, K.D., Valente, T.W., Casanova, M., Partovi, S.M., Mendenhall, B.M., Hundley, J.H., Gonzalez, M., Unger, J.B. (2010). Evaluation of an overdose prevention and response training programme for injection drug users in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, CA. Int J Drug Policy, 21(3):